The Myth of Limited Government

The Fundamental Contradiction

The concept of "limited government" contains an inherent logical contradiction. It asks us to believe that an institution which holds the ultimate power to use force - the power to override all other claims to authority - will somehow voluntarily restrain itself. This is like expecting a monopolist to voluntarily charge competitive prices or asking a dictator to respect term limits.

Constitutional Constraints: Paper Barriers

Constitutions are often cited as the mechanism by which government power is limited. But who interprets the constitution? The government itself, through its courts. This creates the absurd situation where we expect the very institution we're trying to limit to be the final arbiter of its own limitations. It's like allowing a criminal to be judge and jury in his own trial.

The Non-Aggression Principle recognizes that no institution can legitimately claim the right to initiate force against peaceful individuals. Yet "limited government" asks us to grant this very power while somehow expecting it won't be abused.

Historical Evidence

Every government in history that started with constitutional limitations has grown beyond those constraints. The United States, often held up as the pinnacle of limited government, began with a federal government of strictly enumerated powers. Today, that same government regulates everything from what you can put in your body to how much water your toilet can use per flush.

This isn't due to some accident or oversight - it's the inevitable result of granting any institution a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Power, once granted, seeks to expand itself.

The Economic Calculation Problem

Even if we could somehow magically ensure government stayed within its prescribed limits, there's still the fundamental problem that Markets are the only mechanism for rational economic calculation. Government, by definition, operates outside the market system. It cannot know what services people actually want or how much they're willing to pay for them.

This means that even "limited" government services like courts and police will be oversupplied (too expensive) and undersupplied (poor quality) compared to what the market would provide.

The Anarcho-Capitalist Alternative

The solution isn't to try to limit an inherently unlimited institution, but to eliminate the monopoly altogether. In a truly free society, all services currently provided by government - including law, order, and defense - would be provided by competing firms in the marketplace.

This isn't chaos; it's the same principle that gives us food, clothing, and computers through voluntary exchange rather than government decree. The market provides these goods efficiently precisely because providers must compete for customers rather than simply taxing them.

Conclusion

"Limited government" is an oxymoron. You cannot limit an institution by granting it unlimited power. The only true limitation on the use of force is its complete privatization and subjection to market forces. Anything less is simply a matter of degree on the road to total state control.